Skip to main content

About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
SFGTV 621
LANGUAGE
English 621
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 621 (some duplicates have been removed)
to talk to you today. you had asked for general information about the number of units in our program and who is in our units? so briefly, we have approximately 1280 completed units in our bmr program. of those approximately 860 are ownership units and 420 are rental units. again i have all of this on a handout that i will give for you for a total of 1280. we have an additional 1200 units in the pipeline that are ready to go. of those the percentage of rental and ownership still shift as we go through the development process. in the past as miss egan mentioned, ownership units used to be the majority to be produced. you had also asked a little bit about the demographics especially in terms of race and ethnicity as to who is in our units. so we took a snapshot and looking at who is our rental and ownership households of december, 2012 and compared that to the relevant citywide distribution of race and ethnicity. so let me start on the rental side. it turns out that the number of households of color in our bmr program overall is actually overrepresented. there is a larger percentage o
development of mix used buildings total of 10 dwellings units and retail spaces and second floor business professional service uses. the building will contain approximately 14,000 square feet and 40 feet in height. there have been a number of modifications to the project since publication of the materials. however these changes were interior. it doesn't affect the facade or the footprint of the parks spaces have increased from 10 to 15 and to address the neighborhood's concern about lack of parking and this change is interior again and not affect the facade or building envelope and bike spaces have increased also and interior and will not affect the exterior or knowledge envelope. proposition. >> >> c that is effective and reduced affordable housing requirements by 20%. the required number of affordable housing for the project has been reduced from two to one. the project will provide 10 family sized dwelling units with family stock of one of which is affordable unit. protject will convert a site into productive mix used development. it's consistent with respect to the existing nei
added the phrase for those units not able to save, "the owner must make good-faith efforts to ensure that before any modification to the sale price is made, that the owner during a six -month period is making a good-faith effort to sell the unit under the current program." similar to the first point, we're clarifying that the bmr rental pricing is at 65% ami, also having included a range in the earlier version. we're provide something flexibility in terms of the annual certificate if he annual certificate if he annual certificate if he xinc c: program filesxinc c: stenoprogram filesxinc c: stenoprogram filesxinc c: stenoprogram filesxinc c: ificate.trn /r/t}{( recertification of income. the fourth point compliance is referenced to the land dedication to give additional instruction to the planners to identify in the review process whether the land dedication applies to a single site or multiple sites in cases where there are multiple parcels being dedicated under the land dedication model. also under the land dedication model, we make clear that the approval letter that moe issues ca
. >> okay. so you now have -- i guess you've got how many total units on this. >> 10. >> so 1.5. that's fine. that makes sense to me. the other question i have, and maybe this a question i will just ask you. these are for sale units? >> undetermined at this point. >> yeah, but i mean your condo conversion -- >> they will be condo mapped. >> i was trying to look through and read -- i should have done this in the report. are the conversions all two bedrooms? >> this is something ben and i was talking about outside. there are different sizes. >> so you've got good size units. that's very good. >> yeah. >> now the final thing and i am concerned about staff had brought up the -- you've got ground floor retail and then you've got second floor office. >> correct. >> and i would like to suggest to the commissioners that we pass some notice of special restrictions to ensure the community they're not converted into living units and there be some kind of specification that inspections are made. >> sure. >> on a regular basis to make sure they're uses are conforming and the purpose is what st
the life of the program. i think you heard a lot of numbers, 1200 units,. that is a good track record. as you all know the housing trust fund was a big package. and within that, and i think really smartly, we don't see it as a giveaway, but we see it as a very intentional and thoughtful policy. it incents on-site bmr to the developer for exchange to producing units, bricks and mortar, permanently affordable housing and developers are rewarded for that. so we should see an increase in the number of bmrs because of that. there is also a piece of trailing legislation that will come before you presumably in the 1st quarter of next year. we think it's a smart idea to make sure that the program is as successful as possible. the idea is to allow more of a range of pricing both of the rental and for-sale, up to a cap, dealing with the low and moderate income categories and then basically vary the number of units that are required, according to the pricing. so you are still getting the same obligation in terms of cost, but you are allowing more variety of the pricing. again, smart stuff. j
, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and housing or ownership units? are they similar to ours? are they lower percentages? well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15% on-site and 20% offsite? >> i'm afraid i can't comment on that. i am not familiar with inclusionary programs in other jurisdictions. >> that is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i don't think i can support it at that point, because i really don't have all the information. if it comes up in the future, i would like to hear about it. >> i also want to thank you on your presentation and wanted to ask mr. chue, the data that you gave us today kind of illuminated the need for more education or focused on credit scores, as you said. what do you think, and you mentioned working with the groups that are in community such as metta. what do you think is a timeline for working through that process? it may be preliminary to ask, but what are some ideas? would it be new programs
of units that have been converted to short-term rentals which continue to occur despite current legislation to curb it. and i keep hearing tenants will get lifetime leases. today is the first time i heard that those lifetime leases would be rent controlled. but supervisor farrell did not explain why they would have extra protection, more protection than they have today. what protection does it given them against an other than move-in eviction and what about those who have been evicted when they were converted to t.i.c. in the first place. i've protested many times in front of those places where people were evicted just to form a t.i.c. there. no one is against families living in san francisco has been intimated but not at expense of elderly disabled and long-term tenants and not at the expense of rent control. people should organize and fight the banks and we should build more housing in san francisco which is truly affordable, not 8 million dollar condos. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm sarah short with the housing rights committee o
flipper. we -- and probably most t.i.c. owners don't stand to make a fortune when a unit converts. the conversion starts at 30,000 and then there are the tens of thousands of dollars that you have to spend to bring thible up to code. then if you do so there's another 6% realtor fees and other closing costs so i think few t.i.c. owners will become wealthy off this process. i'd also -- obviously like to ask the committee to pass this legislation. the vast majority of units in question are already owner occupied. they're off the rental market. no rebilitial units are being lost. i would like to see somebody recognize this and stand up or minority rights. with lifetime leases provided with rent control as well as funds going to the affordable housing funds and property taxes going to the city when units eventually turn over, no one loses. id ask the committee make decisions based on the facts and support homeowners support those protected and put money in the coffers which will help everyone. thank you, supervisors wiener and farrell for your proposal of balanced legislation. thanks f
is an ordinance amending the health code diskloeging landlord's prohibition of smoking in residential rental units. >> this item is sponsored by me. this is the smoke free housing disclosure policy. it's a common sense measure for maximum notification of smoke free units in our multi unit buildings. so, colleagues, i'm asking for your support. i think this is important because it's bringing together not only tenant organizations but also the landlord organizations, the san francisco apartment association, with the mission sro collaborative which was the major impetus with other tenant organizations in supporting this to create stronger public health policies and to limit second hand smoke in multi unit buildings. the hazards as we said before of second hand smoke is well documented. there's no safe exposure level, it's cancer-causing, it's toxic, it leads to thousands and thousands of deaths each year and by limiting access to second hand smoke, it's protecting people's health. also, when people live in close proximity to units where there are smokers in apartment buildings or multi unit buildi
on existing dwelling units on the ground floor and in the case of this garage the effect on second and third floor. basically san francisco, we changed our attitude. i believe in this -- of the city and each more inappropriate than it was when it was proposed a number of years ago. thank you. >> president hwang: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeinji%bxÑ none, then commissioners, the matter is submittedxj . >> vice president fung: commissioners, it was -- in reviewing the briefs on the rehearingzwn clear toq"t&xme at least from my1?ég/ point of view,qf) / that the extension was related to the acquisition of the permit, and not forse 311. the question of the 311 and the permit scheduling came upñepz during the course of that hearing, and it was -- as far as i'm concerned, not new information. therefore i will not support a rehearing on.%($ >>?q 7ñ do you have a motion, vice president? >> vice president fung: i'm going to move to deny the rehearing request. >> i can call the roll. on that moti
and they need to look to the future for themselves and make sure it's a viable entity. they're adding a unit to the ground floor and horizontal expansion to the rear and also adding a bedroom and bathroom to the existing flats and those units being really truly family size homes. you can see that the applicants are talking about the open space and one thing to keep in mind we're not talking about being in the heart of north beach or mission where there isn't much open space and this is opposite ft. mason and there is considerable open space on the other side of the street. the existing interior block does have a lot of variation in terms of the depth of the buildings. most notably the building right here goes into the rear open space and looking at the ground study this is proposed change with the new addition and this is the existing, so it gets to be very hard to see what that impact in terms of the open block is. the other issue that kind of came up that we heard a lot about was views and the occupants of the building next door, the dr applicants at the two meetings that were held they
from( rv three units down to two units. and a notice of special restrictions were recorded but recorded against the>c9kñz the wrong property description so that my clients, when they bought the property some years later, had no notice of the notice of special restrictions reducing the property building count from three units to two.ap3y since ouruaüearing we discovered pg&e documents clearly showing that after that notice of special restriction wasoa recorded and after the building permit wasés%( issued reducing it from three k,8ñ units to two units pg&e was issued permits to install four electrical meters on the property, three gas meters on the property and we alsoy:::wx have uncovered, from the department of building inspection records,? .b its own certificate ofm?g completion and occupancya nzl in 1980 -- excuse me, in 1999, years following the previous@$jpd owner's building permit reducing it from three units to two. i'd like to show you this, if i could. this:jp$e÷ document clearly says the certificate of
decide to brush away the quality of life in those units, irrespective of who lives in them, owners, renters, i don't care, it creates a change. we have a rule in this room that secondary conversations, please be kept to a minimum, if you don't mind. i am sorry to saying that, but i'm in the middle of the thought i want an answer and consideration and besides it's light. so i'm having a hard time that we're just brushing that aside saying property line windows, that is just too bad and we're opening the door for a huge amount of large apartment buildings, which are the signature and the mainstay of many of the buildings in that area, without really thinking about the consequences. in addition to that, i do not believe that adding one floor to an already large building without adding any units with the affect it has on everybody else is really any net gain by which i'm interested in not having a larger argument of why we're doing this? >> i wanted to respond to you about the notification for the conditional use. the project was correctly noticed to all property openers. regarding
nothing wrong with a building that develop these 27 units, brings 27 new families that will add vitality to the neighborhood. i think that is a very valuable improvement and we have been done the road about the church and how expensive it would be to try to retrofit it. it doesn't economically seem to make a lot of sense. and this is a private project, too. this is not a city-owned project. this is not a project being done by an affordable non-profit. this is a private project and there is -- they are responsible to be receptive to the neighborhood and build something that is appropriate to the neighborhood and is supported by the neighborhood. and protected light and air and other things, but they should have the ability to put the type of project that they wish to put there, and have that ability as along as it's not deleterious to the neighborhood. >> commissioner borden? >> this project has certainly come aways. it's ridiculous in my personal view that there weren't these kind of conversations before. at this point i don't think that we're ready to take up this project. i think t
projects. and the remainder will have other units that could be converted to areas for stunt. it would include bicycle parking spaces in the basement. first, i want to touch on the regulation policies. the granting of sections the code permits that the project meets certain finding. the reduction of ground level wind areas. and that it is in your packet. i would be happy to discuss any of those issues. the project also requires to exceed the - allows more stunt unit for a minimum of - again, i would be happy to discuss the project and the staff requests that this is because of project for student housing. and variances from section 1 to have exposure on the courtyard. and to allow access to the washburn street and to allow are you e reduction of the areas around the street. it is also worth noting if the principle of law of this project would allow other units. as you recall legislation was passed that it was to be tracked this project. it concludes 1 hundred and 20 units. since they would like to allocate all the units and the project could be flexly. the students rely on bicycling i
is that they often want to keep the family unit intact. although the victim won't be deported, she is concerned about the father of the children being deported. that has a chilling effect. that is a consideration that we as a community have to take. >> i will chime in on behalf of the domestic violence community; it has been a high priority for us to change the role of california and other states, operating with secure communities for many reasons; one of the major ones is the chilling effect on victims come forward, concern for their own safety or the deportation of the father of the children or their partner. we work with angela chan and the statewide organization against domestic violence; angela did a webinar, a top priority. we will support tom -- introduced on monday to strengthen california's response to this. we are living in san francisco where things are not quite as bad. you can speak to anyone no matter where they are on the continuum of immigration reform about the chilling effect of domestic violence survivors and families, and why the federal initiative is dangerous. >
is that the t.i.c. units and ownership is very unique to san francisco and therefore requires unique and brave decisions. i'm a single woman, i've lived here for 20 years, i bought my first home as a t.i.c., not because i was looking to flip a unit, not because i'm wealthy but because i worked very hard to do what seemed practical and smart. i can't believe i'm standing here right now thinking that buying a home in san francisco is the most regrettable thing i've ever done because it's actually the most difficult, pretty much anywhere in the country. i think the devastating concern right now is of course what people have said about these loans. but san francisco is a subprime market crash waiting to happen. and we have to wake up and all of you, the supervisors opposed, have to consider the reality of this. the difference is that we are not subprime in that we've all honored these homes, we all have high credit ratings, we've been very thoughtful and efficient about our part of the deal. but when inflation hits and these loans, which are not extendible past five years, crash, we're all going t
you. next speaker please. >> can't top that. my name is brian, i represent a six unit building in district 3 in russian hill. we're a big variety of owners who got school teacher, accountant, salesperson, freelance journalist and city employee. so i think we represent some cross-section of san francisco. we never evicted anybody in our building but at the same time one of our owners -- two of our owners had kids, they had to move out, they weren't able to sell their unit so they're stuck renting and losing money every month. it's hurting them and their ability to get started in their new lives. i think for a lot of us, myself included, it feels like a bit of a waste to paying an extra point and a half to our mortgage every month to the bank. we would much rather give it to the city than give it to the banks, in the form of this affordable housing fee at a time when the city can use it. and so i'm in support of the legislation and i hope you guys will consider it. thanks. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi. my name is -- schubert, first time homeowners. i'
the previous@$jpd owner's building permit reducing it from three units to two. i'd like to show you this, if i could. this:jp$e÷ document clearly says the certificate of final completion of occupancy dwelling unit three. you can see right<::zw÷ here. because of these new facts -- >> vice president fung: can we see that again please. >> yes, sirct three dwelling units. >> vice president fung: i'm looking for the date. september >> 1999. >> vice president fung: okay. >> because of this, because of these new items of evidence we think a rehearing isá%($ñ necessary so this matter may be fully1ojp$át adjudicated and the truth arrived at to determine this matter more accurately. extraordinary circumstances exist because tenants are going to lose theirc residence if we don't have a rehearing on this matter. thank you very!09k&2 much. >> vice president fung: onenwk,,aq additional question. on your brief, the way the pagination occurred, i'ms assuming that on page 6, the fourth electrical meter was cjéÑe 1f that correct?
of the units are two bedroom and larger so for families and we will be working hard to identify low and moderate income families in the neighborhood to qualify for the housing. we encourage you to support the determination of the planning staff and provide the conditional use authorization and other entitlements they recommended. thank you for your support of affordable housing and tdnc. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am steve perry with brandel architects. i am the architect of record and i have additional documents i would like to hand out. so what i am handing out to you is some additional renderings and diagrams showing the urban design and new elevations with context. so here we have our building, an aerial view, showing the context and just to start off i want to show you we have the b of a data center to our west, mercy housing to our east, and the new crescent heights building to our north, and if you could please turn two pages to the first diagram. so what i would like to do is back out a little bit and show the urban form and how it's shaped in the downtown
the chief, and captain flaherty from the special victims unit, san francisco police department. >> i know that the hour is late. i'm greg suhr, chief of police for san francisco. it is important what commissioner marshall spoke to earlier, and echo about the tragedy in kansas city. we are talking about the 22-year-old mother who was killed and leaves a three-month-old baby. that is with these conversations are about. even though we are in a staffing crisis, the mayor and the people who sit on these chairs will address this but we are still down about 300 officers. thank you for your comments and the material beverly upton who keeps moving around back there. concerning our most vulnerable. in october we built a space in our most secure floor, behind locked doors, a place for children, and many of the folks behind me contributed to making it nice. everybody has been sitting together, we are altogether all the time anyway. in october, domestic violence, elder abuse, missing persons, juvenile violence, came together under one roof. a putting the human trafficking task force regional
for other projects. it is to get more students out of larger units and into the smaller units in the city. particularly i want to thank you the planning staff that did on this. a few of you have been there through the wool process. please move this forward >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is david i'm with the college of the arts. where a 1 hundred and 6-year-old institution founded during the earthquake. the lack of affordable student housing in the city is impacting the ability of san francisco colleges to attract the best student. as you know the colleges have been working with each other in the san francisco area that will help developmenters to bring solutions to our area. when i searched the business wants to review some of the milestones in this issue i came across some articles. as tim mentioned terrific work by planning staff has been tremors and ron if you're watching thank you. students bring a unique housing opportunity. they don't drag things along as they move instead, they arrive in san francisco with a bike they walk bike or take transit
of the $20,000 per unit came forward. i know that one of -- the thinking behind it is that fee can go into the affordable housing fund, which i understand is a great idea. but i'm just wondering how that number came forward. currently i know to enter the lottery you pay a certain amount of fee, so kind of the cost of that, the administrative fees, and going through a bypass. just in general, how that number came to be. >> supervisor farrell: to supervisor kim's question, when you go through the lottery, let's say you win the lottery or convert otherwise, there is a fee to start the process going forward. that fee will not be waived. that will continue in time. this is a new and separate fee. the dollar amount out of that nee came from the nexus study conducted, studying the effects of a condo converse study two years ago. happy to provide you with that. but that's where that fee emanated from. >> co-chair kim: in terms of depending on the number of years obviously that fee reduces down to $4,000. i know there's concern about whether $4,000 per unit can mitigate the loss of rent contro
units. >> vice president fung: i'm looking for the date. september >> 1999. >> vice president fung: okay. >> because of this, because of these new items of evidence we think a rehearing isá%($ñ necessary so this matter may be fully1ojp$át adjudicated and the truth arrived at to determine this matter more accurately. extraordinary circumstances exist because tenants are going to lose theirc residence if we don't have a rehearing on this matter. thank you very!09k&2 much. >> vice president fung: onenwk,,aq additional question. on your brief, the way the pagination occurred, i'ms assuming that on page 6, the fourth electrical meter was cjéÑe 1f that correct? >> yes. and no gas meter for that. >> and i have a$@%( and these documents the pg&e documis'8da that you're referring to, these could not have been obtained prior to this why? >> we were tryingm6nnz1ñ for a long time to get pg&e documents. they were requesting a subpoena. we were trying to explain to them that the board of appeals. we hadqz8b noy subpoena
as in keeping with the neighborhood character of tall multi-unit buildings." what about the neighborhood character that isn't next door to the building? what about the neighborhood character of people like us on jackson street on which there are multiple buildings that face this view? we're all affected by this one owner, one singular addition for one families. we're not talking about adding more space for families, but a penthouse for some owner who will block the view and dress decrease the value for all of us in the neighborhood. this is part of the character of the city. you can't encroach by building more and more higher and higher buildings. there was supposed to be a pre-application meeting. nothing. i went away for thanksgiving. i came back there was no notice. a neighbor sent me a xerox saying did you know there was a meeting about what was happening? i had no idea. there wasn't a meeting to discuss it and we were barely notified that, in fact, they were doing it. for these reasons i ask the planning commission to please put a stop to the project or at least to stop it right
at 7 1/2 and 8% mortgages here in our city. on a typical 500,000 unit that's a difference between paying 2500 a month and 1200 in mortgage. that's the difference between staying in our city and leaving. as a city, as a state, as a counterwif spent significant amounts of money helping homeowners stay in their homes. on the federal level congress has passed a number of laws reducing the tax burden on homeowners facing foreclosure, expanding home ownership counseling, expanding the the federal housing administration to play a larger role for those at risk of foreclosure. obama signed the home affordable refinance program in 2010. locally we've done many things. in january 2008, this board of supervisors established a san francisco fair lending working group, with its number one policy recommendation of whenever possible, home ownership should be preserved and foreclosure prevented. this promotes family stability in our neighborhoods and community. second of all, the goal of this legislation was to provide security for tenants in t.i.c. buildings. supervisor wiener as coauthor want to
took an oath just last week to support and defend the constitution of the united states and of the state of california. being respectful during the public comment is a minimum you can do. >> good afternoon board of supervisors. i want to agree with the other citizens of san francisco that spoken this issue. if i own property and got i don't own property in san francisco i would be appalled. this lady is trying to appeal to you all. come on now. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. seeing none, let's hear from the city departments public works and planning, >> good afternoon this is bruce -- city and county surveyor. we receive the application in august of 2012. in the application, submittable in september 25. received approval from the planning department on oct. 24, and granted tentative approval on december 10. received the appeal on january 4. we of course don't have any issues with this; wanted to grant tentative approval. >> terms of the board emily rogers, but slate of affairs for the planning de
to purchase the unit from them because we could not sell the unit. it's just ridiculous what the financing situation is -- forced us to do. they're our friends. what are we going to do. plan c doesn't solve everything but i think it does a lot for people in our situation. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name's cole, i'm a t.i.c. owner occupier in the lower haight. it's a three unit building with one unit that's occupied. if this legislation passes i see three things happening with that building. myself and the other owner will have to get a good secure hopefully 30 year loan at 3% rather than the 6% we're currently paying. making life much easier for us, making it ease wh easier for usy in the city. the tenant occupied unit, the tenant will be given a lifetime lease. she's a lawyer, will have no -- enforcing that. the organization will get 145,000 from the quers. -- conversion. san francisco is famous for looking after its minorities. please give a little bit back to the middle and support the condo bypass. >> chair wiener: thank you very
, a t.i.c. owner. we bought our four unit building in 2005. we're original t.i.c. partners. it was our way into the market at that time. my other partners are much younger than i am. i came into it as a -- after a dissolution of a marriage and it was my only ability to be able to buy at that time. we're very supportive of this condo bypass conversion, and we ask that you please take it into consideration. it's the answer to a lot of people's need to have homes in san francisco. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> high name is sheryl power, i live in district 5, i'm a t.i.c. owner and i bought my t.i.c. in 2004, with two other couples. and it was a perfectly empty building. nobody was evicted. we bought it from a retiring couple and their kids use the other two units. it's a three unit building. at the time we thought it would take five to seven years to convert and we got our adjustable loan and now we're sitting on an adjustable loan and watching the market go by us. and i'm just worried every year if i'm going to be able to afford to stay. i don't make nearly as m
micro units but there is an idea you want to reverse the remainder in case i have a response how would that prevent people from coming forward and taking advantage of this? >> i think it's basically a first come, first serve as the projects are entitled when we reach the 375 we would have to take a look. >> but that doesn't get to the core of my question. the project lose for 1 hundred concern with a reverse that would cut into the ability of others. you can say let the market determine and off i go or there has to be a concern amount of clarity >> that's the only question otherwise i'm extreme happy about the building. i think the use of this project is a wonderful idea. and it speaks to the inhabits and the fact if cc a is indeed involved i couldn't be happier >> thank you i have a number of items first of all, i think your color schemes are very we have. there's a nice appearance. i'm not sure so sure about the featured art on the side of the wall that looks like skrishl. the next thing is the actual rooms themselves. with a one hundred and 50 square feet is the useable part >>
with the exception of subject property and the adjacent lot to the east contains tall multi-unit buildings of 7-11 buildings. the property proposed a one-story vertical addition that would increase the building's height from approximately 42' to approximately 56'. which is well within the property's 80' height limit. the two partis who initially filed request for discretionary review of the project are the owner of the adjacent 7-story participant parking apartment building. the 5th floor tenants in the adjacent building are concerned that the project will reduce light and air to their apartments, which is located at the rear of the building behind the large light court on the eastside of the building. the department has received communication from four additional parties in opposition to the project. these parties, these four partize live at 1824 jackson street, condominium building located a block south of subject property. we have also received one additional letter of support. fished for the record i will pass copies of these to the commission. the department recommend that the commission
and by individuals and our responses to them. next, please. the last one on this list here addresses bmr units. we are proposing two on-site, bmr units and one in-lieu fee. next, please. i would like to look here. this is kind of like describing the result of the process over the last six months. the major design revisions on the left are all of the parking goes into one basement, with one garbage -- garage entrance. the height has been reduced one full story, and it's actually down to 53'. the mapping along clay, adjacent to 1630 clay. four story against four story the same is true of the larkin. it was at one time a gap that was opening onto larkin between the historic building and our new building so this design is now significantly different one than shown to the commission and we have included a community room, which we'll discuss. it's still ongoing discussions about how the community room will be used and under what kind of conditions and terms. the community considerations on the right we're including three community parking spaces, which could be either rented or purchased. we have one
to buy back the condo conversion process these units will be taken out of rent control stock and will open the flood gate and incentivize the speculators. a lot of the tenants are low income and will not afford other places. i have also experienced ellis act eviction process and i do not wish this upon anyone to go through. also speculators will be motivated into the t.i.c. market. -- the waiting list, we're concerned more speculators will jump into the market and -- to get into the condo conversion while empty. this will not create new housing, let alone affordable. we need to protect rent control housing so families will not be forced to move away. i -- the housing market. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm going to be brief with my comment. let's not fool ourselves here. this legislation is not going to do anything to increase the affordable housing stock here in the city. nor will it put a dent in it, nor will it protect rent control. according to state law the -- cycle of rent control is 1979. henceforth any building
big the lot has to be or how small the lot has to be or how many units it has to accommodate. i like the option of land dedication. i like it here obviously gives us the ability to do 100% affordable project if they have the funds and built more affordable housing than you would get from the inclusionary model. >> yeah, basically there is a calculation offered within the code. the project site itself falls within the tier a, which basically says that the land itself has to be -- the dedicated land has to be 35% the size of the land of the project. so, the affordable housing project. >> yeah, to clarify. so, the project site is roughly 50,000 square feet. considering just the development which is excluding the new mission theater. this is the development portion of the residential unit. >> you take 35% of that which is roughly 15,000, and that's the size of the new lot for the land dedication. that land dedication lot has to be a minimum of 40 units. moh has determined that it can be 46. they can also -- there's some language that allowseses them to go as low as 25 in certain cir
another unit. i have seen additions to single-family homes and multi-dwelling units that make it nice to live. i would like to make a motion to approve with the following conditions, dropping the floor to floor height to 13' and take a 1.5 foot off of there and go with flat solar panels. i think the total floor to floor was 14.5, am i not wrong on that? >> i would just like an interpretation of this section. >> excuse me, that is okay. but the motion would be to take a foot and a half off and make flat solar panels and you have a nice, high interior space. >> commissioner sugaya, you are looking at interior height, 13. >> section you have floor to floor heights, as well as the floor dimensions. and it goes 8.1 8.1, 10 and then 13 feet is the way mine is dimensioned. >> 14 is from top of the finished floor. >> this is interior 12. if he is at 14.1. so you take it down to 13. that is fine with me, drop a foot off of there. it's not a foot, a foot and one inch, i guess and make your panels flat. that would be the motion to approve. >> so you take a foot -- say it again. >> wel
before you is a conditional use authorization request for a planned urban planned unit development as well as a conditional use authorization request to allow development on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet, to allow accessory off-street parking at a ratio above 5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, to allow a building height exceeding 65 feet along street frontage on mission street, and to allow a former hadly retail use doing business as alamo direct house [speaker not understood]. modifications to the planning code requirements for rear yard, open space, dwelling unit exposure, street frontage and off-street freight loading. the project proposes to demolish existing story giant value store, subdivide the subject lot into two lots, construct an eight story mixed use building and rehabilitate the new mission theater which is landmark no. 245 as designated in article 10 of the san francisco planning code. the project were to construct an 8 story mixed use residential over ground floor commercial building with below grade parking garage. the project includes 114 new dwelling un
're not talking about tenants and buildings being able to buy their units. renters being able to buy their units. you're asking people who are a higher income group being able to kick out people, often with a middle man, a speculator, doing it. if folks here wanted to live in a unit they would be asking you to pass this with a 10 year ban on renting or selling the unit. before it could be sold. but many people are going to condo convert and then flip it. my friend actually owns a t.i.c. he bought it for 260,000. his t.i.c. owner upstairs just sold their unit for 450. that was five years ago. so clearly you can sell your t.i.c. unit for some money. they knew what they were getting into when they bought the unit. there's a lottery. the lottery didn't start last week. my dad pays two-thirds of his income in rent. his building just sold. i'm really scared. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> i have my card here. my name's jennifer grant, i've lived in san francisco for 25 years. i've worked at nonprofits that entire time, nonprofits funded by the san francisco. i ran two of the battered wom
inform prospective tenants of which units have been designated as smoking optional. supervisor mar, you've already basically explained what the ordinance would require and i would just like to add that over the years as the public has become much more educated and aware of the dangers of second hand smoke we've been getting a lot more calls with tenant complaints about smoking and in particular we've seen a lot of people who have called like i remember we got a call from a mother with a brand new infant, seniors with lots of chronic diseases, people with hiv, people with cancer and heart disease, who had just moved into their apartment and had no idea they were going to be exposed to second hand smoke that was drifting from other units into their apartment and they were totally at a loss of what they could do. this is basically a right to know ordinance. this would inform prospective renters where smoking is allowed so they can make an informed decision and choose to decide on an all terp tiff if they don't want to be exposed to the second hand smoke. and supervisor mar, i think you t
double the units. maybe the numbers i have are not completely correct but i noticed between three to six units, that sometimes they're -- over 200 units were converted. maybe my numbers are wrong, but i wonder how that might happen. between three or six there's always 200 or less, there's no exceptions that go through? >> not for residential conversions. it's always 200 or less. >> co-chair kim: okay. so i'd be curious to know in 2009, you had 141 three-unit buildings, 132 four-unit buildings and 22 five to six units that were converted. am i reading that incorrectly? >> i don't... i suspect you're looking at -- there's probably conversions in there and new construction. new construction -- >> co-chair kim: i see. so new construction is also included in that as well. >> i'm not sure where those stats came from but i can assure you that 200 -- no more than 200 units a year get converted from existing residential units. >> co-chair kim: okay. thank you very much. >> sure. >> chair wiener: president chiu. >> supervisor chiu: a couple of additional follow-up questions to supervisor kim's que
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 621 (some duplicates have been removed)